AFSCME 3357-HOF'S BLOG

The Hydrogen Infrastructure that Never Was

For the long term, most auto industry pundits think that the hydrogen fuel cell will replace the internal combustion engine. The chief problem (and there are many) is that we do not have an infrastructure to supply hydrogen. We also do not have clean sources of massive quantities of hydrogen.

Now, here's a nerd history lesson for you. In the 1950s, U.S. government came up with the idea for a supersonic spyplane that would fly about 100,000 feet, well out of the range of anti-aircraft guns (and the missiles of the day) and fighter interceptors.

Famed Lockheed skunkworks chief Kelly Johnson came up with an idea of an aircraft called the L-400, codename operation "Suntan", powered by conventional jet engines, with the engines burning liquid hydrogen rather than jet fuel.

There was no problem in modifying the jet engines. The project never came to fruition for various reasons. Among them was the lack of a hydrogen infrastructure. That being the case, it was planned to establish a massive hydrogen infrastructure to support the planes if they were deployed.

By 1957, it became clear that a hydrogen powered airplane would not be the cure to the nation's intelligence-gathering problem. By then, Johnson's team was on track to build an even better plane, the Blackbird. The A-12 blackbird (the CIA version) flew at Mach 3.2 and at 80,000 feet. Although somewhat lower-flying, it was much faster than the Suntan, which may have never been able to reach it's projected Mach 2.5 speed. In addition, the Blackbird could run on a special type of jet fuel, and be serviced by tanker aircraft that required only modest modifications. With the blackbird, there was no need for a hydrogen fuel supply.

The A-12 made it's first flight in April 1962, about the same time that I took my first baby steps. For almost 40 years the Lockheed Blackbird was the queen of the skies. Because the Blackbird was so great, hydrogen-fueled cars are that much further from reality.

contents

George W. Bush: Good Christian?
Part 1 - Bush & the Poor

On the PBS Frontline site, Jim Wallis, Editor of liberal evangelical magazine Sojourner is interviewed about George Bush and how his faith affects his policy. He had a very interesting thing to say about a conversation that he had with George Bush early in his presidency.

… I'm often asked what I think about the faith of the President George W. Bush. I think it is sincere. I think it's very real. I think it's deeply held. I met the president when he was president-elect at a meeting in Austin. He spoke of his faith. He spoke of his desire for a compassionate conservatism, for a faith-based initiative that would do something for poor people. Afterwards, [when] he was talking to us, George W. took me aside and said, "Jim, I don't understand poor people. I don't live, never lived around poor people. I don't know [how] poor people think. Frankly, I'm a white Republican guy who just doesn't get it. But I'd like to. How do I get it? How do I understand?"

I said, "You need to listen to poor people, and people who work and live with poor people." In the inaugural address, which talked more about poverty than any inaugural in years, he said, "We have to listen. Most of us don't understand poverty," he said. "We have to listen to those who do."

I take that seriously. But when I met the president and began talking with him, and listening to what he was saying, I felt that he was sort of a self-help Methodist -- meaning, someone whose faith had made a difference in his personal life. Solved some drinking issues and some family issues, and changed him. Gave him purpose. That's part of Methodism. Always has been. Kind of a 12-step God -- you know, changing my life.

My hope was that he'd make a pilgrimage from being a self-help Methodist to a social reform Methodist, like John Wesley was. John Wesley talked about your faith changing your life, solving drinking problems, saving your family and your marriage.

But also he talked about the abolition of slavery. I wanted to hear George Bush talk not just about how personal behaviors cause poverty, but how structures and social oppression, and hardness of heart of the rich, and laws and lack of just laws cause and perpetuate poverty. So that'd be a pilgrimage from self-help to a social reform Methodist.

That was my hope -- that in this process of his faith-based initiative, we'd see some movement in the president's theology, deepening of his theology, where he'd understand that poverty's not just rooted in individual choices, but in social policies, practices, and behaviors.

Then Sept. 11 came. I think his role changed dramatically, his notion of himself and his place in history, and he became commander in chief of the war on terrorism. The self-help Methodist became now almost a messianic American Calvinist, speaking of the mission of America, and even of his perhaps divine appointment to be president at a time such as this.

Rev Wallis then talks about how Bush has taken Biblical language & Christian metaphors and used them in his political speeches.

Hymnology is often used in the president's speeches, and his 2003 State of the Union. There's "wonder-working power" in the faith and values of the American people. Well, that's not what the song says. Those of us who are evangelical hear that song, "Wonder-Working Power" -- it's a hymn. "There's wonder-working power in the blood of the Lamb," the song says, which means the salvation in Christ, not in the values of the American people. It's not what the song says.

Or Ellis Island, on the first anniversary of Sept. 11. He talked about how America stands as a beacon of light to the world, and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. Well, that's in the Gospel of John. But the light there is the word of God, and the light of Christ, not the beacon of American freedom. So hymns are being altered and put in a different context. I think what you see now is more an American civil religion than evangelical biblical faith.

… That's bad theology. It confuses American civil religion and biblical faith. It confuses church and nation. It confuses God's purposes with the best interests for American foreign policy, so there's a confusion here. It's bad theology and bad foreign policy at the same time.

. . .
So this isn't for me a social action question. It's not a political question. It is impossible to be an evangelical Christian and ignore the vast teaching of the Bible about poor people.

… We haven't been doing good Bible study. We have been ignoring the Bible, and we have been conformed to our culture. Romans 12:2 says, "Don't be conformed to this world. Be transformed by the renewal of your minds," where one translation says, "Don't let the world squeeze you into its mold." Too many evangelical Christians are like affluent, upper-middle class suburban dwellers more than they are like those who love and cherish and follow the Bible.

Now, they think they are. They believe they are. They love the Bible. But they're not paying attention to whole vast areas of biblical teaching that call for economic justice. You can't be evangelical and associate yourself with Jesus and what he says about the poor and just have no other domestic concerns than tax cuts for wealthy people.

I mean, these are good people. But this is not biblical thinking. What's changing -- and it is changing all over the country -- is a new generation of evangelicals are discovering the poor in the Bible.

… When I ask people in more conservative places like Midland, Texas, about politics and political parties, their answer to me is, "The Democrat doesn't know bunk about religion or faith, so we really don't even have a choice. We have to go with the Republican Party, because at least they understand faith. The Democrats don't even talk to us in a language that we understand or care about."

… Well, I've said this to Democratic leaders -- they often seem to be clueless about religion or faith, or [are] dismissive or disrespectful. There are religious fundamentalists that we all know of and speak of. There are also secular fundamentalists, people who have a disdain for religion, and many of those voices are in the Democratic Party.

So religious people often feel alienated or disrespected by Democrats. I think that's very sad. I think political leaders of both parties need to respect religious people and their values and the tradition in this country.

I believe in the separation of church and state, absolutely. But I don't believe in the separation of public life from our values, our basic values, and for many of us, our religious values. One of them for me is this deep concern about overcoming poverty. That is a religious value for me, not just a political one.

You said something that I thought was interesting. You said that when people think of the word evangelical, they get worried. There are often bad connotations. But really, it's all about spreading the good word -- it's the good word, right? It's the good message. Why is it that there's so much fear around evangelicals?

I think it's because of the religious right. I think there is a fear among many Americans about the word evangelical, evangelicals, because they associate that term with the religious right, with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition.

I think that's a shame, because I don't think they're really in the evangelical tradition. They are American fundamentalists who espouse a kind of cultural American religion that doesn't have much to do, as I read, [with] biblical faith, with evangelicalism.

When I was growing up in an evangelical home, we knew about Falwell. He was a fundamentalist. He wasn't really an evangelical. He was kind of a backwoods fundamentalist. But he ascended to political power. The media's made him a household word.

I often think that Robertson, Falwell -- their role now is to be kind of ludicrous foils for the American media. Whenever the media wants somebody to say something stupid about religion, they ask Robertson and Falwell, and they get what they want every time. These are not good Christian leaders. They're right-wing ideologues. They're cultural fundamentalists. I don't think they're really evangelical. You'll get me in trouble, but I don't think they really are. I don't hear much of the good news. I hear a lot of bad news from them, not much good news about poor people. … But I think that's the fear.

Martin Luther King Jr. really understood the role of the churches when he said, "The church is not meant to be the master of the state." We don't sort of take power and grab the levers of government and impose our agenda down people's throats. We don't legislate Leviticus. "Nor are we meant to be," he said, "the servant of the state." [We don't] clean up the mess of bad social policy, [or] put a band-aid on the sores of injustice, [or] be just social service providers.

No, we are not the master of the state, said King. We are not the servant of the state. We are the conscience of the state. The churches or the religious community should be, I think, the conscience of the state. We're not just service providers. We are prophetic interrogators. Why are so many people hungry? Why are so many people and families in our shelters? Why do we have one of six of our children poor, [and] one of three [of these are] children of color? "Why?" is the prophetic question. …

What does the heart of God say about the poverty? What does the heart of God say about what justice in the Middle East would really be? That's what we ought to be raising. That's what it means to be an evangelical. …

I think to be evangelical means to be obsessed with that biblical imperative, to seek justice for poor people. That's evangelical. It's in my evangelical tradition to be committed fervently, passionately, to that biblical mission of overcoming poverty. So I want the president to be more evangelical than his domestic policy shows so far in terms of fighting poverty.

So I have no trouble with the faith. I want it to be applied. I want a faith that takes Jesus seriously in foreign policy. When Jesus says, "Blessed are the peacemakers," what does that mean? This is what Jesus taught. He doesn't say the "peace lovers." Blessed are the peacemakers.

I think it's not credible to believe that Jesus' command to be peacemakers is best fulfilled by American military supremacy through the imposition of Pax Americana. Do we really think that's what Jesus meant by "Blessed are the peacemakers?" I think that bears some evangelical reevaluation, in regard to our foreign policy. …

Let's talk about President Bush and his personal faith. You have said that it's not that you question his personal faith and his belief in Jesus. It's that you question how it affects our domestic and international policies. …

… I'm often asked what I think about the faith of the President George W. Bush. I think it is sincere. I think it's very real. I think it's deeply held. I met the president when he was president-elect at a meeting in Austin. He spoke of his faith. He spoke of his desire for a compassionate conservatism, for a faith-based initiative that would do something for poor people. Afterwards, [when] he was talking to us, George W. took me aside and said, "Jim, I don't understand poor people. I don't live, never lived around poor people. I don't know [how] poor people think. Frankly, I'm a white Republican guy who just doesn't get it. But I'd like to. How do I get it? How do I understand?"

I said, "You need to listen to poor people, and people who work and live with poor people." In the inaugural address, which talked more about poverty than any inaugural in years, he said, "We have to listen. Most of us don't understand poverty," he said. "We have to listen to those who do."

I take that seriously. But when I met the president and began talking with him, and listening to what he was saying, I felt that he was sort of a self-help Methodist -- meaning, someone whose faith had made a difference in his personal life. Solved some drinking issues and some family issues, and changed him. Gave him purpose. That's part of Methodism. Always has been. Kind of a 12-step God -- you know, changing my life.

My hope was that he'd make a pilgrimage from being a self-help Methodist to a social reform Methodist, like John Wesley was. John Wesley talked about your faith changing your life, solving drinking problems, saving your family and your marriage.

But also he talked about the abolition of slavery. I wanted to hear George Bush talk not just about how personal behaviors cause poverty, but how structures and social oppression, and hardness of heart of the rich, and laws and lack of just laws cause and perpetuate poverty. So that'd be a pilgrimage from self-help to a social reform Methodist.

That was my hope -- that in this process of his faith-based initiative, we'd see some movement in the president's theology, deepening of his theology, where he'd understand that poverty's not just rooted in individual choices, but in social policies, practices, and behaviors.

Then Sept. 11 came. I think his role changed dramatically, his notion of himself and his place in history, and he became commander in chief of the war on terrorism. The self-help Methodist became now almost a messianic American Calvinist, speaking of the mission of America, and even of his perhaps divine appointment to be president at a time such as this.

This raises some deep and unsettling theological questions, I think, whether there's a confusion now in the role of church and nation -- the body of Christ, the Christian community, what its role is versus the role of the nation.

Hymnology is often used in the president's speeches, and his 2003 State of the Union. There's "wonder-working power" in the faith and values of the American people. Well, that's not what the song says. Those of us who are evangelical hear that song, "Wonder-Working Power" -- it's a hymn. "There's wonder-working power in the blood of the Lamb," the song says, which means the salvation in Christ, not in the values of the American people. It's not what the song says.

Or Ellis Island, on the first anniversary of Sept. 11. He talked about how America stands as a beacon of light to the world, and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. Well, that's in the Gospel of John. But the light there is the word of God, and the light of Christ, not the beacon of American freedom. So hymns are being altered and put in a different context. I think what you see now is more an American civil religion than evangelical biblical faith.

… That's bad theology. It confuses American civil religion and biblical faith. It confuses church and nation. It confuses God's purposes with the best interests for American foreign policy, so there's a confusion here. It's bad theology and bad foreign policy at the same time.

…We know that President Bush felt a calling to run for president that was based in his faith. He said this in his autobiography, that when 9/11 happened, he said he felt like he had a divine calling. This was why he was president. Can you talk about that a little bit? How a person might think that he or she has a divine calling?

Well, it's certainly very appropriate for any Christian to ask, to struggle with a calling, a vocation. I do it. Every Christian does. What is my calling? What am I supposed to do? I think running for office, public office, can be a [divine] calling. I mean, I've wrestled with that very question myself.

But when one believes that you've been appointed by God for a particular mission in history, you have to be very careful about that, how you speak about that. Where is the self-reflection in that? Where is the humility in that? Are we asking whether we are being accountable to God's intentions and purposes? Or are we asking for God's blessing on our activities? They're very different things.

I think when we are so sure that God is on our side, and that those who are not with us are against us, or even with the terrorists, that's taking another step. I believe God is in our world, in our history, in our lives, in our choices. To ask what God's calling is for me is a fair question, a necessary question, for any Christian. That's not a problem.

But when we place God on our side of things, that we are now ridding the world of evil -- that's very dangerous, that one nation has this role to rid the world of [evil]. What about the evil we have committed, that we are complicit in? The richest nation in this global economic system, in which 2 billion of God's children are poor [and] live on less than $2 a day?

Well, there are things to look at ourselves here, if we're presiding over that global economy. Does this language allow us to look at ourselves, or does it give us a kind of certainty, and a sanction, and even a sense of divine righteousness for our political position? Are we blinded to things that we're otherwise not willing to look at?

Every U.S. president has used God in their language when they speak to the nation. But you have expressed some concerns with President Bush's theological references. You mentioned "wonder-working power" as an example. Can you explain your concern?

… Evangelicals, like any group, have language that [its group members will] recognize, and that hymn is a very famous evangelical hymn. So every evangelical kid like me heard "wonder-working power," knew exactly right away what it was referring to, this wonderful old song. "There's power, power, wonder-working power in the blood of the Lamb," which is about the salvation in Christ.

But now the president uses it for a different meaning. He says there is wonder-working power in the faith and values of the American people. Well, that's not what the song said. That's not what it was about.

So here are all these evangelicals, and they say, "That's our song. That's our language. He understands us." What it's now about is wonder-working power in us, in the Americans, in our vision, our values, our place in the world.

Well, that's bad theology, and it sounds like our religion. So the two problems are its code language for one constituency, and it changes the meaning of the words. …

Mike Gerson, President Bush's speechwriter, is a well-known evangelical who went to Wheaton College. He very much would know the back and forth of all these hymns. What is he doing when he writes these speeches?

… The speeches contain biblical language and hymnology, but often misused or often put in a different context, and the meaning has been changed. The meaning of the hymns and the meaning of that biblical text has been changed to serve another purpose. That's my concern, when all of a sudden it's supporting American foreign policy, when it wasn't about American foreign policy. It's about the light of Christ in the world. It was about the word of God in history. It wasn't about the American people and their values. So he's changing the meaning of the words, and that to me is disconcerting.

Q.So can you summarize your general concern with the president using this religious language?

It is a code language that is meant to appeal to a base, to reassure a base, to tell them he's one of them and that they understand each other. But then when he changes the meaning of the words, it's even more problematic for me, because he's really turning the words to purposes which are in our national self-interest as he perceives it, but really are contrary to what their original meaning was.

Rev. Willis faults Bush for not putting his faith into action. He also faults other evangelical leaders for failing to hold Bush accountable.

… When evangelical leaders can persuade the president to be concerned about what's happening in Sudan, or sex trafficking around the world, or HIV-AIDS, that's a very good thing. I am completely supportive of that. But I'm an evangelical Christian leader, as well, and we haven't been able to persuade the president to do what is necessary on poverty reduction in this country or around the world, or to find a foreign policy that makes the critical linkages between economic justice and overcoming violence and terrorism.

So I think there's been some progress on some of those fronts. I'm glad to see evangelicals pushing for things like Sudan and critical human rights issues. But we want to talk about what a president could do in terms of domestic and global poverty, and that just hasn't been done. Bono sat with the president two weeks ago and couldn't get $1 billion more to fund the HIV/AIDS initiative. That is the president's own initiative, and he was totally of no capacity. A billion dollars every week for Iraq, $87 billion for Iraq. We can't get $5 billion for childcare over five years in welfare reform.

So a number of us in this country, as Christians, as evangelicals, are waiting to see policies that reflect the language and the intention of a faith-based initiative, or compassionate conservatism. We are not seeing policies that benefit poor people in this country or around the world. That, for us, is a religious concern; not just a political one.

Friday, September 24, 2004

Thursday, September 23, 2004

Monday, September 20, 2004

Friday, September 17, 2004

Hof's Blog

Blog Archive